Skip to main content
Glama

Easypost

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Validate Claim

validate_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Is it true that…" / "fact check" / "verify the claim that…" / "did X really…" / "was Y actually…" / "confirm or refute" / "true or false" — natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. Company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash for public US companies) verify via the structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path with exact percent-delta math; ANY OTHER factual claim (macro statistics, rates, prices, drug data, records) automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline — routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. IMPORTANT for callers: could_not_verify means the check did not happen (our LLM or source failed) and carries verification_error{stage,detail} — it is NOT evidence for or against the claim, and must not be shown as one. unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesNatural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
tolerance_pctNoMax percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tolerance_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations already declaring read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, the description adds significant value by explaining subtle output distinctions: 'could_not_verify' means the check didn't happen and must not be used as evidence, while 'unsupported' means no source exists. It also discloses the routing logic and the fact that it returns citations. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence carries essential information. It opens with query examples, then explains routing, return values, and critical caveats about error states. No word is wasted; it is structured logically and front-loads the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values—and it does thoroughly, listing all verdicts and clarifying the meaning of each. It covers error conditions, citation format, and the two processing paths. With only 2 parameters (both well-covered), the description provides a complete picture for correct invocation and interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains them well. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that tolerance_pct overrides the wording-implied tolerance and is useful for hallucination detection (1–2%). This is a valuable addition, so the score is above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a claim verifier with specific verbs ('fact check', 'verify', 'confirm or refute') and specifies the resource (authoritative sources). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its role as a replacement for a multi-step pipeline (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison), making its purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides context about the two paths (sec EDGAR for company-financial claims vs. grounded pipeline for others). It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is strong enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Easypost toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (stable, beta, grounded) are nearly identical, with beta explicitly matching stable, creating clear misselection risk. The five polymarket_* tools and several research tools (deep_research, bet_research, entity_profile) also overlap in purpose despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and readable, with consistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx_, polymarket_, easypost_), but mix verb-first (validate_claim, resolve_entity) and noun-first (entity_profile, ai_visibility_check) conventions. The server name 'Easypost' does not align with the overwhelmingly Pipeworx-focused tool set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a heavy count, especially with three near-duplicate ask_pipeworx variants and many meta-tools. The set is also unfocused: only two shipping tools under an 'Easypost' label while the rest are a broad data-research and prediction-market platform, making the count feel bloated for the apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

As an Easypost server, shipping coverage is severely incomplete (rates and tracking only, no label purchase, address verification, or refunds). Within the Pipeworx tools, the cited pipeworx:// URIs have no direct fetch-by-URI tool, leaving a notable dead end for agents trying to retrieve full records.

Resources